Yan Grams Of Study To Murder

Offence of non-typical omission is one of difficult problems in criminal law theorycircle. Discussions of this issue has never stopped in theory circle, but the theory has yetto reach a general consensus on issues. So, it makes sense that the question of “unrealinnocent”, which has the name “the unsolved question” or the “hardest and unsatisfyingquestion”，has been confusing the judiciary practice and the field of criminal law.There are no definite constitutive elements of the offence of non-typical omissionin Chinese criminal law, but there are a large number of cases to be handle in judicialpractice, which are non-typical omissions. The question of how to use the constitutiveelements of the offence of non-typical omission relates the question how to use thecriminal theories in judicial practice. The case of a intentional homicide by YanKeyu ofZhejiang province is a typical one by the way of non-typical omission. It was publishedin “Reference to Criminal Frial”, and it is used to be a judicial practice guidance. Butthis case doesn’t give a standard of how to hear a case of offence of non-typicalomission in judicial practice. The value of this case is given a basic attitude ofnon-typical omission in judicial practice, it could constitute as normally constituting thecrime by the way of non-typical omission. The questions such as the relationshipbetween offence of non-typical omission and statutory crime, the gist of crime ofoffence of non-typical omission, the theory of possibility of act, the objective essentialsof offense of no typical omission, the qualitative of a case, deserve further research.The relationship between offence of non-typical omission and statutory crime is adecision whether the offence of non-typical omission can be treated as a crime in thebasic theoretical premise. The study can be sure that offence of non-typical omissiondoes not violate the principle of statutory crime. The act duty of the non-action crime isthe core of the theory of the non-action crime and the basis of judging the non-actioncrime. The foundation of specific obligation has four aspects: the conduct obligation that the law expresses, demanded by vocation, caused by legal act and caused byantecedent act. The duty caused by purely moral obligation isn’t the act duty of thenon-action crime. Either antecedent act is legal, it can be unlawful, or even criminalbehavior. Antecedent act can be both responsible and responsibility. From the formalpoint of view, antecedent act can be both act and omission. After determining as an actobligation, but also to examine whether as a possibility, if not as a possibility, it can notconstitute a crime impure. Determine nature of the case, in conjunction withequivalence theory, from a combination of subjective and objective perspectiveomission as whether the corresponding equivalence. Theoretically, convictions isaccurate, and sentencing is appropriate.